Stanford set up a program whose aim was to present diverse viewpoints on various topics but the program was criticized for not being "diverse" in terms of the race and gender of the speakers. But the two kinds of "diversity" are not the same, and the value of the first (call it Millian diversity) has almost nothing to do with the values of the second, which used to be called affirmative action before Justice Powell confused an entire nation, including its alleged intellectuals. Sensible reasons for affirmative action include compensatory justice, social inclusion, and providing role models. Millian diversity, by contrast, aims to promote discovery of the truth through exposure to competing ideas and arguments.

UPDATE: Philosopher John Dupre (Exeter) writes with an interesting observation:

As a former Stanford faculty member I was interested to read and briefly follow up your blog post on Stanford’s program of presenting diverse views to its community. While I certainly cannot argue with your distinction between Millian diversity of views and diversity of the identities of holders of the views (though both might be a good idea), you don’t mention the rather ironic fact that, at least as far as I can find out online, the failings with regard to the second point are dwarfed by the failings with regard to the first. An opening session with two billionaire funders of Facebook, one, Peter Thiel, a well-known extreme libertarian conservative, and the other apparently a good friend of his, chaired by the notoriously right wing historian Niall Ferguson, is hardly a paradigm of diverse perspectives.

According to the website subsequent speakers included the IQ and race theorist Charles Murray on inequality, and a conversation on sexuality and politics between the well-known anti-feminist philosopher Christina Sommers and a right-wing Catholic journalist. Francis Fukuyama looks about the most liberal speaker mentioned.

The critics may have got their criticism confused, but they certainly had much to criticise. As the Chronicle article suggests Stanford now recognises, a more diverse (sensu 2) planning committee might well have been a good way of getting a more diverse program (sensu 1).

Indeed, that program of speakers is not exactly a triumph of Millian diversity, although the way to get that is not with affirmative action on the planning committee, but Millian diversity on the planning committee, or simply a principled commitment to speakers with genuinely competing views. The Federalist Society in U.S. law schools is actually a good model of the latter: Federalist Society events always involve a commentator or respondent with opposing views to the conservative speaker. (The Federalist Society does, in my view, too often give a platform to mediocre academics simply because of their politics, but even when that happens, they still have a respondent with an opposing view.)

So there were over 800 votes in the poll since yesterday, although some suspicious voting for Gabbard/Bloomberg at one interval, so I'm going to list the top six, since Sherrod Brown was at times in the top five:

Given the left-leaning tenor of this blog, and many of the readers, the only real surprise here, to me, is Klobuchar. But comments are open, I'm happy to hear from readers about their choices, whether in the top six or not. My own preference would be for Sanders or Warren, who have an actual social-democratic policy agenda. Brown is also good on that score, and in some ways, Gabbard, although she has a lot of odd baggage related to her religiously-inspired bigotry in the past. Please submit your comments only once, they may take awhile to appear.

No doubt the pundits have been waiting to see what the blog readers here think, so get on it! Rank your candidates from first to last (you can also choose "no opinion" for those you have no opinion about). I'll post results in a couple of days. Have fun!

UPDATE: Would the person repeatedly voting for Tulsi Gabbard as #1 and Michael Bloomberg as #2 please stop and get a life.

Longtime readers will recall Steven Salaita, illegally fired by the University of Illinois for his constitutionally protected speech, who got a cash settlement, but not his tenured faculty position. Having been effecively blacklisted by the Zionist thought police from the academy, he trained for and is now driving a school bus. He writes about his new life here. It's long, but extremely interesting and at times poignant, especially his relationship with his father.

On the one hand, we have candidates with actual, substantive positions that make clear they are not Republicans and not neoliberal Democrats--most clearly, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren--and then we have candidates who are selling their personality and life story and "feel good" blather, and not substantive agendas: Senators Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kristin Gillibrand, and now Amy Klubochar. I sure hope the substance wins, and the personalities go back to their mirrors.

UPDATE: This is apt, from political theorist Corey Robin (Brooklyn College). (Thanks to Dean Rowan for the pointer.)

The things you write on Twitter are public. They are published on the world wide web. They can be read almost instantly by anyone with an internet connection on the planet Earth. This is not a bug in Twitter; it is a feature. Twitter is a thing that allows you to publish things, quickly, to the public.

Most things that you write on Twitter will be seen only by your followers. Most things that you write on Twitter will not be read by the public at large. But that is only because the public at large does not care about most things that you have to say. It is not because the public does not have "a right" to read your Twitter. Indeed, they do. They can do so simply by typing Twitter dot com slash [your name] into their web browser. There, they will find a complete list of everything that you have chosen to publish on Twitter, which is a public forum.

Philosopher Alexander Nehamas (Princeton) wrote a useful account last year of what has transpired. In the United States, this libel action by a public official would have been tossed immediately; but Greek law is at another extreme, and, together with corrupt courts, they have supported the fascist Kotzias's case. (Even under Greek law, as best as I can understand it, Nehamas is right: Kotzias was not accused of being a Nazi, although he's certainly a fascist! Under official EU principles regarding freedom of expression, this guy should have no case.)

The ARB asked me to share this letter to the European Union--signed by myself and many academics internationally--about this attack on fundamental free expression rights the EU supposedly protects: Download ARB letter current february 5

Folks at the ARB wrote to me:

Please note that the list of signatories is not complete and that we are still in the process of collecting signatures. The full list will be held and updated regularly on the website of the Athens Review (www.athensreviewofbooks.com). Whoever wants to add their signature they can email their name and affiliation to info@athensreviewofbooks.com until the end of February when the letter will be sent officially to Presidents Tusk and Juncker.

We lodged an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (which incidentally has on two prior occasions condemned Greece in similar cases involving violation of freedom of speech following appeals by its editor-in-chief). However the case will be heard in 2020 and so the journal will be shut down before the hearing and that is why we are trying to make our case known and bring it before the European parliament for discussion.

The handling of our case has been sharply criticised by renowned professors and distinguished legal scholars. It is referenced in the Reporters without Borders’ 2017 annual report for Greece as well as in statements by the Association of European Journalists. In addition, four different MEPs from different political parties have submitted questions to the European Commission.

Freedom of the press and democracy in Greece are in jeopardy, in fact, Greece tops the list of European countries found guilty by the ECHR in cases concerning freedom of speech and violation of Article 10 of the Treaty of Rome. We ask that Greece finally respects the rule of law and EU Human Rights law. Our case shows is that the fight is never over and that for evil to triumph, all it takes is for good men to do nothing. This is not a struggle to merely defend ourselves; it is about defending principles and freedoms which we strongly believe are precious to all.

I have asked the ARB editors about whether they can set up a fund to which readers can contribute in support. I will post more information about this as it becomes available.

One of the tactics for shutting down rational discussion of the gender self-ID law in the U.K. is the accusation of "transphobia." Because I've given attention to the important and substantive views of several feminist and gay philosophers writing about this issue--perhaps most prominently, Kathleen Stock (Sussex) (e.g, here and here), but also Leslie Green (Oxford)--I'm now being accused by the usual suspects of "transphobia." (I suspect the additional reason for the smear is that I've also been vigorous in objecting to the harassment and defamation of Professor Stock, including by many philosophy faculty and students.)

In any case, I thought it would help to collect examples of my horrifying "transphobia" such as here and here and here.

ADDENDUM: This new piece in New York Magazine gives a sympathetic and clear account of some of the issues being debated about sex and "gender identity." (It uses the term "TERF," but not dismissively or as an epithet.)

They’ll never admit it in public, but many of your bosses want machines to replace you as soon as possible....

[I]n private settings, including meetings with the leaders of the many consulting and technology firms whose pop-up storefronts line the Davos Promenade, these executives tell a different story: They are racing to automate their own work forces to stay ahead of the competition, with little regard for the impact on workers.

All over the world, executives are spending billions of dollars to transform their businesses into lean, digitized, highly automated operations. They crave the fat profit margins automation can deliver, and they see A.I. as a golden ticket to savings, perhaps by letting them whittle departments with thousands of workers down to just a few dozen....

In Davos, executives tend to speak about automation as a natural phenomenon over which they have no control, like hurricanes or heat waves. They claim that if they don’t automate jobs as quickly as possible, their competitors will.

As to who will buy the products of their operations once all the workers are gone...well, that doesn't seem to occur to any of them.

If only there had been a philosopher and economist who had examined this phenomenon.

UPDATE: Reader Jeff Rice (Northwestern) shares this funny anecdote:

Charles Wilson, president of GM was walking through an auto plant with Walter Reuther proudly showing off the first robotic arm working the assembly line. Wilson says to Reuther, “try organizing robots” to which Walter replies, “try selling cars to robots”.

Guilluy: All the growth and dynamism is in the major cities, but people cannot just move there. The cities are inaccessible, particularly thanks to mounting housing costs. The big cities today are like medieval citadels. It is like we are going back to the city-states of the Middle Ages. Funnily enough, Paris is going to start charging people for entry, just like the excise duties you used to have to pay to enter a town in the Middle Ages.

The cities themselves have become very unequal, too. The Parisian economy needs executives and qualified professionals. It also needs workers, predominantly immigrants, for the construction industry and catering et cetera. Business relies on this very specific demographic mix. The problem is that ‘the people’ outside of this still exist. In fact, ‘Peripheral France’ actually encompasses the majority of French people.

spiked: What role has the liberal metropolitan elite played in this?

Guilluy: We have a new bourgeoisie, but because they are very cool and progressive, it creates the impression that there is no class conflict anymore. It is really difficult to oppose the hipsters when they say they care about the poor and about minorities.

But actually, they are very much complicit in relegating the working classes to the sidelines. Not only do they benefit enormously from the globalised economy, but they have also produced a dominant cultural discourse which ostracises working-class people. Think of the ‘deplorables’ evoked by Hillary Clinton. There is a similar view of the working class in France and Britain. They are looked upon as if they are some kind of Amazonian tribe. The problem for the elites is that it is a very big tribe.

The middle-class reaction to the yellow vests has been telling. Immediately, the protesters were denounced as xenophobes, anti-Semites and homophobes. The elites present themselves as anti-fascist and anti-racist but this is merely a way of defending their class interests. It is the only argument they can muster to defend their status, but it is not working anymore.

...as this list of her "major" proposals shows. My friend Scott Shapiro nailed it on Twitter, as usual. I hope she fades fast in favor of an actual New Deal liberal, and takes her Clintonesque blather back to the Senate.

Speaking of reactionary Catholics (e.g.), here is another, law professor Adrian Vermeule (Harvard) (he wasn't always one--when I wanted to hire him at Texas twenty years ago, he was simply a run-of-the-mill legal conservative):

Progressive liberalism has its own cruel sacraments—especially the shaming and, where possible, legal punishment of the intolerant or illiberal—and its own liturgy, the Festival of Reason, the ever-repeated overcoming of the darkness of reaction. Because the celebration of the festival essentially requires, as part of its liturgical script, a reactionary enemy to be overcome, liberalism ceaselessly and restlessly searches out new villains to play their assigned part. Thus the boundaries of progressive demands for conformity are structurally unstable, fluid, and ever shifting, not merely contingently so—there can be no lasting peace. Yesterday the frontier was divorce, contraception, and abortion; then it became same-sex marriage; today it is transgenderism; tomorrow it may be polygamy, consensual adult incest, or who knows what. The uncertainty is itself the point. From the liberal standpoint, the essential thing is that the new issue provokes opposition from the forces of reaction, who may then be conquered in a public and dramatic fashion by the political mobilization of liberal forces....

If we are to be entirely flexible about means, to what ends? The ultimate long-run goal is the same as it ever was: to bear witness to the Lord and to expand his one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church to the ends of the earth. In global perspective, the situation is actually quite promising. The twin ideas that we live in a secular age and that Christianity is shrinking apply mainly in the liberal redoubts of the West, and not even all of them. Secularism is actually in decline, chiefly because secular materialists have so few children. The culture of liberalism, having attacked the family, proves incapable of reproducing itself. (Deus non irridetur.)...

Strategically, the Church can be flexible as necessary on all dimensions save one—the gospel teaching and sacramental practice of the magisterium, which perpetuates itself by apostolic succession. Like Paul, in the service of the universal Gospel, the Church can be “all things to all men,” politically speaking, precisely because political forms are merely possible means for carrying the core mission into execution. From the Church’s standpoint, many (although not all) political forms lie within the space of the determinatio—certainly a far broader range of political forms than liberalism permits.

This radical political flexibility as to means, decried by Macaulay and justified by Schmitt, is a hard counsel; it means that ultimate allegiances to political parties, to the nation, even to the Constitution, may all have to go if conditions warrant it. It is not that the strategic Christian may not respect, support, and participate in upholding such things—that is of course often sensible, indeed mandatory (as St. Peter instructs us), when and so long as there is no conflict with the Church’s teaching and mission. Alliances of common goals, as opposed to allegiances, are useful and appropriate, depending upon local conditions. But politically speaking, there can be no “progressive Christians” or “Republican Christians” or even “American Christians.”

AND ONE MORE: A former student points out that earlier this week, Professor Vermeule accused me, based on no evidence, of being likely to engage in unlawful and unprofessional employment discrimination. Amazing. By that logic, one would predict that Professor Vermeule's recent writings will give legal ammunition to every atheist or Jew or Muslim he votes against for appointment or tenure.

Since he picks it apart pretty thoroughly, he will no doubt be added to the list of wrong-thinking villains like Kathleen Stock, Leslie Green, and mild-mannered me. Fortunately, since those who keep lists of wrong-thinking villains are increasingly the objects of the ridicule and obstracization that they had tried to inflict on others, we can expect that Professor Byrne's list will soon be the "place to be."

As everyone knows, Senator Elizabeth Warren has declared, and now Representative Tulsi Gabbard. I'd vote for either, and am happy they are in the game. But since presidential elections are now heavily influenced by the garbage media (e.g., Fox) and the brainless Internet, the real question is who will manage this environment the best? And, of course, who will beat the monster-child? Ocasio-Coretz, the newly elected Representive from the Bronx/Queens has been driving the right-wing crazies even crazier, so Senator Warren and Representative Gabbard should take pointers from her.

I'm actually slightly hopeful for America that these folks are on the national stage. The real value of life has nothing to do with congressional elections, or interest rates, or the stock market, or immigration policy: it has to do with creating space for human beings to be human beings, and realize their endlessly fascinating capacities. I'm generally pessimistic about how much this can happen under capitalist relations of production, but maybe some of these folks can push off the inevitable catastrophe that is capitalism? And maybe they can push it off long enough for an alternative to be found?

So the last emotionally mature adult has left the monster-child's cabinet. If he left over the decision to withdraw the troops of the imperial army form Syria, then I have less sympathy for his decision. Mattis may be an adult, but he is still a victim of the ideology of his time and place.

I am hopeful Secretary Mattis explained to the monster-child that if a nuclear war started, Manhattan, and the monster-child's real estate holdings, would disappear first, which may be our salvation. All joking aside, our situation is apocalyptic and bizarre: the one person in the world who can kill us all in the next ten minutes is not someone any adult would hire as a baby-sitter. Secretary Mattis should have orchestrated a coup while he could, but now it's too late. Let's hope the monster-child's love for his island keeps us alive.

First, from a philosopher in the UK: "The dumb outbursts you quoted in your post establish that not all imbalances of power are injustices. Some people really should be powerless!"

Second, a somewhat longer response from a political theorist in the US:

Although I ended up in Political Science, I used your Gourmet when looking at grad schools back in 2001. I've been a regular reader of your blog since 2003. We are very much on different sides of many issues (I am a rather traditional Catholic, trained as a Straussian, etc.) Nonetheless, I have always found you to be an enlightening voice of sanity and have been very grateful for your many contributions. (When I teach Nietzsche, I always refer my students to your book. And I agree with you about Lampert's reading of Nietzsche.)

I say all this because I read your post about the attacks on you in Twitter and I was just shocked, though not surprised. What a bunch of idiotic condescending assholes!

So, even though I am not in your field, and even though we probably disagree about more than we agree about, I wanted to thank you for the many years of service that you've given to academia, not only as a scholar but as public voice of reason (though not a voice of "public reason!"). I know you are more than capable of holding your own against these canailles (as Nietzsche would probably have called them), but damn it it's time for those of us who have profited from your labors to at least thank you for it. So thank you!

Another excellent essay by philosopher Alex Byrne (MIT); particularly delicious and amusing is the analysis of Judith Butler's "argument." This is the kind of writing that makes one remember what can be so good about analytic philosophy's intellectual hygiene.

As readers will no doubt be aware, he passed away yesterday, age 94. I haven't much to say about him. He was the last of the "Wall Street Republicans" to be President; he came of age in a Republican Party that had not yet completely ceded to the Democrats the role of "prudent wing of the ruling class." Obviously compared to the current monster-child in the White House he appears almost saintly. One very good thing he did was sign the American with Disabilities Act, which makes America much better than many generally more social-democratic Western democracies in terms of requiring accomodations for those with disabilities, physical and mental.

That's Natalie Wynn, recently profiled in The New Yorker. She had previously been a PhD student in philosophy at Northwestern, clearly in the "Continental" side of that department judging from some of the things she says about philosophy in her videos. She is genuinely quite funny at times (her humor is very clearly not "politcally correct"), and puts a lot of work into researching her topics (and producing her videos): see, e.g., her explanation of "Incel" culture on the Internet, or her takedown of Jordan Peterson.